bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2014 10:27 pm
CDC acknowledges it could have done more on Ebola
Source: AP-Excite

By EMILY SCHMALL and NOMAAN MERCHANT

FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) — The nation's top disease-fighting agency acknowledged Tuesday that federal health experts failed to do all they should have done to prevent Ebola from spreading from a Liberian man who died last week in Texas to the nurse who treated him.

The stark admission from the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came as the World Health Organization projected the pace of infections accelerating in West Africa — to as many as 10,000 new cases a week within two months.

Agency Director Tom Frieden outlined a series of steps designed to stop the spread of the disease in the U.S., including increased training for health care workers and changes at the Texas hospital where the virus was diagnosed to minimize the risk of more infections.

A total of 76 people at the hospital might have had exposure to Thomas Eric Duncan, and all of them are being monitored for fever and other symptoms daily, Frieden said.

http://ak.imgfarm.com/images/ap/954390193283-Ebola_20141015.jpeg



Members of the Our Lady of Fatima Catholic Church pray during evening mass in Fort Worth, Texas, Monday, Oct. 13, 2014. Ebola patient Nina Pham is a member of the church. (AP Photo/The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Mark Rogers)

Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20141015/ebola-2947378423.html

0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2014 10:59 pm
From Jim Geraghty's newsletter:

Quote:
Oh Look, the Official Statements about Ebola Are Subtly Shifting

Uh-oh:
“We have to rethink the way we address Ebola infection control, because even a single infection is unacceptable,” Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in a news conference.
Frieden did not detail precisely how the extensive, government-issued safety protocols in place at many facilities might need to change or in what ways hospitals need to ramp up training for front-line doctors or nurses . . .

Officials have said [nurse Nina] Pham wore protective gear, including a gown, gloves, a mask and a face shield, while caring for Duncan on multiple occasions. But Ebola can easily infect those who come into contact with the bodily fluids of Ebola patients, and the smallest slip in putting on or taking off protective gear can open the door to the virus.
“We need to consider the possibility that there could be additional cases, particularly among the health-care workers who cared for [Duncan] when he was so ill,” Frieden said. “We would not be surprised if we did see additional cases.”

Hey, remember when our government was all gung-ho, assuring us they were going to “stop it in its tracks”? Here’s he same guy, nine days ago:
Health officials stressed that they are confident they can control this situation and keep the virus from spreading in the U.S.

"We're stopping it in its tracks in this country," Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, declared during a news conference Tuesday afternoon.

See if you can spot the unnerving detail in our new airport screening policy:

JFK airport is the first U.S. airport to begin screenings for Ebola. Washington Dulles International Airport, Newark Liberty International Airport, Chicago O’Hare International Airport and Hartsfield -- Jackson Atlanta International Airport will begin screenings this week.
Those five airports account for 94% of all the 150 travelers who on average arrive daily from those most affected countries, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Over the past 12 months, JFK received about half the passengers from those countries entering into the U.S., according to the CDC.

So what about that other six percent? Are we just hoping that no one in that remaining six percent has Ebola? Sure, it’s just nine people a day, but that’s 45 people a week, about 180 a month . . . And before someone says, “Oh, what are the odds of someone with Ebola getting on a plane and coming to the United States?”, remember, this already happened.
Does this mean “rethinking” the U.S. troops in the hot zone over there?
Small numbers of highly-trained U.S. troops wearing full-body protective gear have been testing the blood of potential Ebola victims without coming into direct contact with them, the head of the U.S. Africa Command said Tuesday.

Army Gen. David Rodriguez initially said at a Tuesday Pentagon briefing that teams of three or four personnel working at mobile test labs were likely to have direct contact with Ebola victims. However, he later issued a correction to conform with White House and Pentagon policy directives against direct contacts by U.S. troops.

"I want to clarify my remarks," Rodriguez said in a statement. "U.S. military personnel working in the labs are not interacting with patients, only samples."

In last night’s Senate debate here in Virginia:

Amid news that a health care worker in Dallas had become infected with the disease, both candidates agreed that President Barack Obama has been too slow to deal with the Ebola crisis.

[Sen. Mark] Warner said it may be time to consider restrictions on flights as some European nations have done, “particularly with a nation like Liberia, where Ebola has spread so widely.”

[GOP Senate candidate Ed] Gillespie said it’s too late to merely consider stopping flights from West Africa where there is an Ebola outbreak. “It’s time to impose a flight ban in that regard and that’s what this administration should do.”

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2014 01:17 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Oh Look, the Official Statements about Ebola Are Subtly Shifting


Oh WAIT! We have to be competent and truthful now? Asks Washington, because this is such a novel concept dont ya know......
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2014 06:11 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
There are two issues here that shouldn't be conflated.

1. The CDC could have done more to prevent ebola from spreading, particularly to nursing staff. There are several things that knowledgable and reasonable experts are saying the CDC should do better.

These include providing better training and resources to nursing staff and ensuring better triage of patients with risk factors and symptoms.

There are calls to change the policy. Some people are saying that certain hospitals should be designated "ebola hospitals" (ensuring there is one in every region). That way rather than treating patients in any hospital, they can be treated in hospitals that are guaranteed to have the best prepared and equipped medical staff.

2. There is no significant risk of a ebola epidemic in the US.

It is easy to nit-pick a big organization like the CDC. You can find every little policy issue, or point out every little stumble from a health care worker. You could do this to any organization from NASA and the US army to Google. It really is irrelevant.

There clearly are things that the CDC could have done better. The fact that the CDC is responding to criticism and looking to change policy is a good thing.

That doesn't have anything to do with the fact that there is no significant risk of a ebola outbreak in the US.
bobsal u1553115
 
  3  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2014 06:42 am
Dallas nurses cite sloppy conditions in Ebola care
Source: AP-Excite

By MATT SEDENSKY and MARTHA MENDOZA

DALLAS (AP) — A Liberian Ebola patient was left in an open area of a Dallas emergency room for hours, and the nurses treating him worked for days without proper protective gear and faced constantly changing protocols, according to a statement released late Tuesday by the largest U.S. nurses' union.

Nurses were forced to use medical tape to secure openings in their flimsy garments, worried that their necks and heads were exposed as they cared for a patient with explosive diarrhea and projectile vomiting, said Deborah Burger of National Nurses United.

Burger convened a conference call with reporters to relay what she said were concerns of nurses at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital, where Thomas Eric Duncan — the first person to be diagnosed with Ebola in the U.S. — died last week.

RoseAnn DeMoro, executive director of Nurses United, said the statement came from "several" and "a few" nurses, but she refused repeated inquiries to state how many. She said the organization had vetted the claims, and that the nurses cited were in a position to know what had occurred at the hospital. She refused to elaborate.

FULL story at link.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2014 06:44 am
Second Texas health worker tests positive for Ebola
Source: BBC

A second health worker in the US state of Texas has tested positive for Ebola, health officials say.

Both health workers treated Liberian man Thomas Duncan, who died last week after becoming the first person diagnosed with Ebola in the US.

Meanwhile, the UN's Ebola mission chief says the world is falling behind in the race to contain the virus.

The World Health Organization (WHO) says 4,447 people have died from the outbreak, mainly in West Africa.


Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29628622


A second health care worker at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital who provided care for Thomas Eric Duncan has tested positive for Ebola, the state Department of Health said Wednesday.

The worker reported a fever Tuesday and was immediately isolated, hospital spokeswoman Carrie Williams said.

The facility will now begin monitoring all those who had contact with the unidentified worker for signs of potential exposures.

The preliminary Ebola test was done late Tuesday at the state public health laboratory in Austin, and results received around midnight.

http://www.news4jax.com/health/nurses-slam-texas-hospital-for-no-ebola-plan/29135524


Source: NBC

A second Texas health care worker who provided care for Ebola victim Thomas Eric Duncan, has tested positive for the virus in preliminary check, officials said early Wednesday - the third known case of the disease in the United States.

The worker reported a fever Tuesday and was immediately isolated at the Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas, state health officials said in a statement. Confirmatory testing will be carried out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.

"Health officials have interviewed the latest patient to quickly identify any contacts or potential exposures, and those people will be monitored," the Texas Department of State Health Services said. "The type of monitoring depends on the nature of their interactions and the potential they were exposed to the virus."

The worker was among those who took care of Thomas Eric Duncan, who died a week ago after he was diagnosed with Ebola earlier this month. The first Texas Health Presbyterian nurse to become infected, Nina Pham, said in a statement Tuesday that she was "doing well" and grateful for her care.

Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ebola-virus-outbreak/second-texas-health-care-worker-tests-positive-ebola-n226161

#BREAKING Second health worker in Texas tests positive for Ebola: state

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/522309589929574400
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2014 06:45 am
The Texas Navarro College rejected two students from Nigeria because of Ebola - that is thought to be more than bizarre here.
bobsal u1553115
 
  3  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2014 06:49 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Especially since Nigeria is doing a pretty good job of dealing with Ebola.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2014 07:28 am
@Walter Hinteler,
That is ridiculous. Couldn't they just have them wait the 3 weeks before entering?
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2014 07:30 am
Today's news reports indicate a second Hospital worker in Dallas has tested positive for Eubola after treating a patient who died of the disease after traveling here from Liberia.

This is an unknown disease in this part of the world and there has been no history of exposure which might provide some level of natural immunity or resistance. I believe some of the smug dismissals we see here of the dangers involved are both unrealistic and a bit stupid.
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2014 07:40 am
@maxdancona,
Yeah, but this is Texas and that makes sense.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2014 07:40 am
@georgeob1,
I think panic will could kill more than Ebola will.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  4  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2014 07:42 am
One of the real problems with Ebola and U.S. hospitals is
that most for-profit and many non-profit hospitals do not have medically-trained people in the top management jobs. Instead, those jobs are filled by MBA folks and bean-counters. They are the people who make the decisions about how the hospital is run in most cases. Since medical staff cannot override directives from the non-medical management team, situations like what has happened in Dallas are always a threat.

When budgetary matters override medical decisions, the result can be deadly. Preparing for something like Ebola is very costly, requiring expensive items to properly protect staff members who will actually have to care for patients. In addition, policies designed to keep uninsured patients from being admitted can lead to people being sent home who should have been admitted.

So, many hospitals have minimal or no preparations for worst-case situations. Management resists costly preparations, so they don't happen. That's very probably the situation at the hospital in Texas. Decisions made by non-medical management override the wishes of the medical staff. Management simply does not understand medical needs, and only concerns itself with budgetary matters. It's a prescription for serious problems.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2014 07:46 am
@bobsal u1553115,
The Nigeria (and the Ivory Coast) seem to be free of Ebola.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2014 07:46 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
This is an unknown disease in this part of the world and there has been no history of exposure which might provide some level of natural immunity or resistance. I believe some of the smug dismissals we see here of the dangers involved are both unrealistic and a bit stupid.


This line of thinking is wrong.

It is not an unknown disease. It is a well understood disease. There is quite a bit of expertise about Ebola, and about viral diseases in general. There has been impressive scientific research by the best educated people on this disease. I get what your saying about the fact it has never been here before... but I think it is irrelevant (as do the medical experts).

The medical experts aren't guessing here. They are experts for a reason. When they tell you there is no significant risk, it is because, scientifically speaking, there is no significant risk.

What you are basically saying is that normal people, without the backing of scientific research should throw out the judgement of the experts who have done the research and dedicated lives to studying this disease... because ... scary unknowns.

We can't all be experts in infectious disease. So the right thing to do is take the greatest minds, give the resources and scientific data they need, and then trust their judgement.

Panicked guessing that ignores all the of scientific facts is not productive.


bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2014 08:23 am
The root failure that led to the ebola epidemic
For months, starting in March, MSF pleaded with world governments and organizations to address the outbreak in West Africa. They issued numerous, increasingly dire warnings.

These warnings were largely ignored until August. For nearly 6 months, the world tuned its back.

It is too late to prevent what is now a major epidemic. Only by world governments and health organizations focusing on stopping the spread of the disease in Africa, which will take massive resources, will we avoid a pandemic.
The few cases that are here in the U.S. currently, are not a serious threat to public health. The spread of ebola in Africa, is. If there are a million cases, as some models predict, by January, all bets are off. MSF and others says governments still aren't doing enough and that the epidemic is worse than the official numbers depict.


<snip>

Senior United Nations officials briefed the UN Security Council on the Ebola crisis on Tuesday.

Anthony Banbury, head of the UN Ebola mission in West Africa, said the WHO had advised that by Dec. 1 at least 70% of infected people must be at a care facility and 70% of burials done without causing further infection.

"If we reach these targets then we can turn this epidemic around," he told the 15-member council via video link. "I'm grateful for the commitments by member states of civilian and military personnel, of material and of money, but I am deeply, deeply worried that all of this combined is not nearly enough."

<snip>

http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-ebola-epidemic-still-spreading-in-west-africa-world-health-organisation-2026223

<snip>

International health organisations have been woefully, shamefully slow to react. The World Health Organisation (WHO) failed to heed warnings about the severity of the outbreak for months. It only acknowledged the seriousness of the problem on August 8, when it finally declared a global emergency.

The Liberian government has tried to place the blame on its people, arguing that their distrust of healthcare workers, burial practices and disregard for its advice have worsened the outbreak. But that is a simplistic view. The people of these poor nations have been let down by their governments, which have failed to prioritise education and infrastructure development – and the world is now witnessing the results.

Had Ebola started in a Western country rather than Africa, the global reaction, including that of the WHO, would have been different. The West’s response has been terrifyingly myopic. In the globalised world, it was only a matter of time before the infection spread to cities and, from there, to other continents. How could we have been so stupid to think that one of the world’s most virulent diseases wouldn’t affect us?

<snip>

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/ebola/11157645/How-the-world-ignored-Africas-Ebola-tragedy.html

MSF: More have died from Ebola than estimated

<snip>

But MSF says that not enough is being done to curtail the spread and impact of the virus. “We are constantly finding ourselves not one but two steps behind in our efforts to try and stop the transmission of Ebola. We’ve heard many big promises from various states and international bodies but a lot of it remains promises which are not translated to action on the ground,” said MSF fieldworker Jens Pedersen.

<snip>

http://mg.co.za/article/2014-10-14-medecins-sans-frontieres-more-have-died-from-ebola-than-estimated
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2014 08:24 am
@Walter Hinteler,
CDC: Ebola outbreak in Nigeria and Senegal may be over
Liz Szabo, USA TODAY 2:12 p.m. EDT September 30, 2014
AFP_533920000_67654150

(Photo: Pascal Guyot, AFP/Getty Images)
410 CONNECT 212 TWEET 11 LINKEDIN 19 COMMENTEMAILMORE

The Ebola outbreak may be over in two countries -- Nigeria and Senegal -- even as it continues to spread rapidly elsewhere in West Africa, U.S. health officials said Tuesday.

No new Ebola cases have been diagnosed in Nigeria since Aug. 31, suggesting that the outbreak has been contained, according to a report Tuesday from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The only case confirmed in Senegal was reported Aug. 28 in a man who survived.

Ebola has infected 6,553 people and has killed 3,083 in the three countries hit hardest by the epidemic — Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia — the World Health Organization says. The number of cases has been doubling every three weeks, and the CDC estimates that the disease could affect up to 1.4 million people by January if it's not quickly put under control.

The Ebola epidemic took a different course in Nigeria from the beginning, and it affected how the world responded to the outbreak.

The first case of Ebola in Nigeria was in Patrick Sawyer, a Liberian-American who landed at the international airport in Lagos, the country's capital, on July 20. Sawyer potentially exposed 72 people, according to the CDC. He died July 25.

Health experts described the spread of Ebola to Lagos, a city of 21 million, as a potential catastrophe. It was also a wake-up call, because it was the first time that an Ebola patient had boarded an airplane and crossed from one country to another. The incident drew intense media coverage to the Ebola epidemic for the first time, even though health officials had been battling the outbreak in Guinea since March.

Nigeria's ministry of health quickly declared Ebola to be a health emergency and began tracing not just Sawyer's contacts but also everyone that those people might have exposed. In all, health officials traced 894 of these contacts. As of Sept. 26, Nigeria had reported 20 Ebola cases, including eight deaths. All surviving patients, now immune to this strain of Ebola, have left the hospital.

Nigeria's swift and organized response to Ebola stands in contrast to the disorganized response seen in the countries hit hardest. The outbreak most likely began in December in Guinea, but doctors there didn't recognize that people were sick with Ebola until March, after dozens had been infected. The disease then spread to neighboring states in areas with a lot of cross-border traffic.

Senegal's only case of Ebola was diagnosed in a 21-year-old Guinean man who traveled from his native country to Dakar, Senegal, in mid-August to see family, then fell sick. The Senegal Ministry of Health had been preparing for possible Ebola cases, and health officials traced 67 of the man's contacts. All of those contacts have passed the 21-day incubation period for Ebola, strongly suggesting that they are all disease-free. The 21-year-old man recovered and was released from an isolation unit Sept. 21.

Senegal and Nigeria remain at risk for new Ebola cases, as sick people continue to circulate, says Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Controlling future Ebola outbreaks in Senegal, Nigeria or elsewhere in Africa could be far more difficult, Osterholm says, noting that tracing nearly 1,000 contacts in Senegal and Nigeria was an exhausting effort. There's no guarantee that health officials would be as successful if additional Ebola patients cross international borders, especially if sick people travel to densely populated urban slums.

The three countries where Ebola is still spreading widely -- Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia -- are three of the poorest countries in the world, and their lack of doctors and medical facilities allowed the disease to spread widely, according to the WHO.

Getting the epidemic under control in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia will still be an enormous challenge, says Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine and professor at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

Some experts now warn that Ebola could become endemic in the region, circulating as widely and commonly as diseases such as malaria.

"There are light years' differences" between these countries and Senegal and Nigeria, Hotez says. "The former have a massively depleted health care infrastructure, whereas Senegal and Nigeria, while still overall considered low-income or low-middle income countries, have an in-tact health system in place."

Devastating epidemics have often accompanied conflict in Africa, Hotez says. He notes that an outbreak of a deadly parasitic infection called kala azar in killed 100,000 people in southern Sudan after a war that began in the 1980s.The disease is also known as visceral leishmaniasis and it affects the liver, spleen, and bone marrow to produce a fatal illness resembling leukemia, Hotez says. Thousands of refugees in South Sudan are again falling victim to the disease, which is spread by sand flies, as they flee from fighting that broke out again in December.

War-torn countries such as Syria and Iraq are at high risk for deadly infectious diseases now, as well, Hotez says. Polio already broken out in Syria, where the civil war has disrupted routine vaccination programs.
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2014 08:37 am
http://assets.amuniversal.com/b6c15170360c0132a5ba005056a9545d.jpg

http://assets.amuniversal.com/4f96955036830132a5e5005056a9545d.jpg
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2014 08:41 am
@maxdancona,
Just what are your qualifications for making such scientific judgments? My strong impression is that you and others here are spouting off about things of which you have little understanding. There is nothing irrelevant about the susceptability of people to diseases to which they have no prior exposure. Your faith in experts and what you suppose are "the greatest minds..." is naive in the extreme.

We have been told that travel restrictions are ineffective and will prevent health and aid workers from reaching affected areas. The obvious availability of dedicated & controlled flights for needed people makes the specious deceit here evident. The fact that the disease has already landed here, carried by a person traveling from an infected area gives the lie to those assurances.

I'm not panicked or even advocating serious alarm. I am however aware that the bland assurances we have been provided by people, who should know better than they evidently do, have so far been proved consistently wrong. That you now insist on blind faith in them is an indicator of your unreliability on the subject.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2014 08:43 am
@bobsal u1553115,
Nigeria and Senegal are days away from being declared Ebola-free, the World Health Organization published yesterday.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Ebola: Science vs. Mass Hysteria - Discussion by maxdancona
The CDC has it all wrong. - Discussion by maxdancona
Ebola In Dallas. - Question by mark noble
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Ebola in The USA
  3. » Page 21
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/28/2024 at 02:39:27